I always thought that the salary of an elected body (parliament) or office (say president of the USA, Chancellor of Germany orBbritish PrimeMminister) should in some way be subject to the voter turnout of the last election.Less voter turnout should result in lower salaries from the public hand, and only in case of an increased or at least a sufficient voter turnout, say 75 per cent (may be different in different counttries), it should be allowed to increase the salary.

So there should be a constitutional barrier of a given voter turnout, and only if it is above that, salaries may be increased, and only in case of a budget surplus.A budget deficit should result at least in a freezing of the salaries of the respective elected office holders, until a surplus is made, as well as a low voter turnout.Considerable low turnout or huge deficits should result in salary cuts.

But I guess this idea will never work, as those who decide on their salaries are always the politicians themselves.

Ingo_Zachos wrote:I always thought that the salary of an elected body (parliament) or office (say president of the USA, Chancellor of Germany orBbritish PrimeMminister) should in some way be subject to the voter turnout of the last election.Less voter turnout should result in lower salaries from the public hand, and only in case of an increased or at least a sufficient voter turnout, say 75 per cent (may be different in different counttries), it should be allowed to increase the salary.

So there should be a constitutional barrier of a given voter turnout, and only if it is above that, salaries may be increased, and only in case of a budget surplus.A budget deficit should result at least in a freezing of the salaries of the respective elected office holders, until a surplus is made, as well as a low voter turnout.Considerable low turnout or huge deficits should result in salary cuts.

But I guess this idea will never work, as those who decide on their salaries are always the politicians themselves.

Greetinx from rainy Dortmund,

Ingo Zachos

The assumption here is that deficits is inherently bad which it obviously isn't. Great voter turnout isn't even necessarily a good thing in case you live in a real democracy (ie where corruption is illegal and where who you vote for matters) - it could just mean that people are happy with the way things are going.

I think that politicians that try to reduce deficits in recession times should be rolled in tar and feathers and anybody with a degree in economics (or just a passing knowledge of the subject) should at any time be allowed to bitch slap said politicians

The assumption here is that deficits is inherently bad which it obviously isn't. Great voter turnout isn't even necessarily a good thing in case you live in a real democracy (ie where corruption is illegal and where who you vote for matters) - it could just mean that people are happy with the way things are going.

I think that politicians that try to reduce deficits in recession times should be rolled in tar and feathers and anybody with a degree in economics (or just a passing knowledge of the subject) should at any time be allowed to bitch slap said politicians

Sune, I only said that the salaries of the elected politicians should freeze in times of a budget deficit. I have never advocated any limitation for making deficits.That would indeed make no economical sense at all, and you are right about that.I just think they should give a good example, not that anti-cyclic fiscal policy would be no option.

As most of the time politicians also tend to create deficits is a booming economy, which reduces the possiblity of an effectice deficit spending when it is called for in a recession, I just thought a little bit of negative feedback to those who did not prevent the recession is no bad idea.

As for your argument, that not voting would be rational, you are not right, as abstention in the center only creates strong radical parties to increase their influence on coalitions, so it is still irrational. Even in a two party median voter model it makes only sense to abstain in the centre if we assume perfect information, which is a bit of assuming an allmighty and wiswe voter. In a multiple party system or in case of inperfect information it is dangerous.

So political paties are asked to make the voters turn up in huge numbers, as small turn out creates a more radical political landscape and more radical policies.

neilwenberg wrote:I will be happy to give my unbiased and uncontroversial opinion on any of the above topics

Mr Wenberg.... i think you, sir, are a darn genius .... having established that, i am not sure i understand fully your definition of "uncontroversial". I would suggest a few topics that are sure to touch a few nerves. But instead i will go easy and give you a relatively "safe" topic. "should parents be allowed to kill people who sexually molest their kids? "http://goo.gl/bfKPVhere is a case in Texas... i would be interested to know your opinion both as a hypothetical and in this case in particular.what , if any , should be the punishment that this father faces if you were the judge????Cheers from Queensland Danny Alvarez

MostFamousDane wrote:The assumption here is that deficits is inherently bad which it obviously isn't. Great voter turnout isn't even necessarily a good thing in case you live in a real democracy (ie where corruption is illegal and where who you vote for matters) - it could just mean that people are happy with the way things are going.

Mister Thrane, I think people like you and I, who enjoy a relatively "higher" form of democracy than others; would have to admit that "real democracy" is in the eye of the beholder. i might not be as dissapointed as you , but i still am dissapointed with the EURO results of last night.

MostFamousDane wrote:The assumption here is that deficits is inherently bad which it obviously isn't. Great voter turnout isn't even necessarily a good thing in case you live in a real democracy (ie where corruption is illegal and where who you vote for matters) - it could just mean that people are happy with the way things are going.

Mister Thrane, I think people like you and I, who enjoy a relatively "higher" form of democracy than others; would have to admit that "real democracy" is in the eye of the beholder. i might not be as dissapointed as you , but i still am dissapointed with the EURO results of last night.

RegardsDanny Alvarez

Well it went as I expected so I am not that disappointed but given that Portugal won couldn't it at least be because of some Ronaldo goals . Given that Holland is the most overrated team ever Portugal is going to finish with 6 points and we will have to beat Germany

While i await Mr. Wenberg's response , i shall indulge in football talk. I think the Dutch are suffering just like Argentina was a few months ago of a disease called "individualititis" .... in which great individual players fail to gel as a team. I personally loved the fact that at one stage the whole stadium erupted into chanting Messi's name taunting Ronaldo. Do not dispair Sune, the dutch will beat the portuguese. You guys need to draw or beat the germans ... that is all.

Danny, you are so right about "individualitis." This is prevalent in many team sports! I'm not saying the Miami Heat are like that (well, not this year), but I am pulling for the Oklahoma Thunder in this year's NBA finals! Frank Deford in a recent weekly comentary on Public Radio stated that an aversion to tie games was uniquely American. Frank evidently missed the Public Radio broadcast of the BBC (in America) that discussed ties in Soccer Football. While a hard fought tie was appreciated, a gentlemen's agreement tie in a competitive situation was not!--George Hay

People who molest kids should be shipped to Iran, the Iatolahs (idots) running the country know how to deal with everybody!! And of course molesters should be executed slolwly like over a roasting fire!

George Hay wrote:Danny, you are so right about "individualitis." This is prevalent in many team sports! I'm not saying the Miami Heat are like that (well, not this year), but I am pulling for the Oklahoma Thunder in this year's NBA finals! Frank Deford in a recent weekly comentary on Public Radio stated that an aversion to tie games was uniquely American. Frank evidently missed the Public Radio broadcast of the BBC (in America) that discussed ties in Soccer Football. While a hard fought tie was appreciated, a gentlemen's agreement tie in a competitive situation was not!--George Hay

George , i agree. while i enjoy watching LeBron play i cannot cheer for his team... and neither can i cheer for the Thunder since they eliminated my beloved Spurs.... so i am watching disspationately and intermittently ... The way i usually try to explain football (soccer) to my american friends is like this .... imagine all those small and medium sized cheers you give in a basketball game ... concentrate them into one single one full of adrenaline and then you can imagine how great is to cheer and get excited over 1 single goal in a 90 minute game. the result is pure passion . I personally enjoy draws when they are hard fought , come from behind, score in the dying minutes kind.

neilwenberg wrote:People who molest kids should be shipped to Iran, the Iatolahs (idots) running the country know how to deal with everybody!! And of course molesters should be executed slolwly like over a roasting fire!

Mr Wenberg, hard to argue with your proposed punishment. Maybe we could ship half of them to Iran and half to some South Pacific country like Fiji, where they could slow roast them and then enjoy a hearty meal LOLAccording to a great friend of mine who is from Solomon Islands and whose grandfather ate a warrior from an opposing tribe (that was their custom till the missionaries changed it all) "It tastes like pig" hahahahah